Sovereignty not worth a nickel?
A terse exchange between Greens Senator David Shoebridge and Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead during a Senate Estimates hearing earlier this year revealed that contracts signed by the Australian government that have handed billions of taxpayer dollars to American and British shipyards, supposedly to support the faster delivery of submarines, did not include standard protective clawback provisions.
If we never see a submarine—as is possible—we don’t get any of our billions back.
In influence and dollar terms, foreign-owned companies comprise the vastly dominant proportion of the industrial base, not “part of” it. Research by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2017 showed that the top 15 weapons contractors received 91 per cent of the Department’s expenditure.
A decade of spin from both sides of politics has inured Australians to the stark reality of our loss of independence inside the US alliance. At what cost?
Michelle Fahy, Jan 12, 2025, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/sovereignty-not-worth-a-nickel?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=154382292&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=emailAustralia’s independence has been dangerously compromised by Labor and Coalition governments, which have signed up to deep-rooted military agreements with the United States of America. These agreements have also underpinned the increasing militarisation of Australia: witness the 2022 speech by Labor’s Richard Marles, the newly appointed deputy prime minister, in Washington DC when he announced that Australian military forces would now become interchangeable with those of the United States.
In August, after this year’s formal annual talks with the United States, Defence Minister Marles announced that the meeting had “built on the last two in seeing a deepening of American force posture in Australia”.
He added: “American force posture now in Australia involves every domain: land, sea, air, cyber and space.”
A decade of spin from both sides of politics has inured us to the stark reality of our loss of independence. Much is made of “defence industry cooperation” with the United States, for example, but this is simply code for the expansion of the US arms industry in Australia in support of its increasing military presence on our soil.
The day before AUKUS was launched in 2021, the US State Department made plain the importance of Australia in supporting America’s military-industrial base:
Australia is one of America’s largest defence customers, supporting thousands of jobs in the United States … The United States is Australia’s defence goods and services partner of choice … the partnership is expected to deepen further over the coming decade, including in the area of defence industry cooperation.
Soon after this statement was published, Marles flew to Washington to endorse its sentiment. He reassured the Americans that when it came to arms production, “our ultimate goal is to supplement and strengthen US industry and supply chains, not compete with them”.
Meanwhile, our much-trumpeted “sovereign defence industrial base” is simply a collection of the world’s top arms multinationals, dominated by the British-owned BAE Systems, the French-owned Thales, and the American-owned Boeing.
Then there is the egregious erosion of Australia’s sovereignty contained within the little-known Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with the United States, which the Abbott Coalition government signed in 2014.
In short, the FPA permits the US to prepare for, launch and control its own military operations from Australian territory.
Yet AUKUS dominates the headlines, even though other decisions by our political leaders that have sold out the public interest have received little coverage in the mainstream media.
A terse exchange between Greens Senator David Shoebridge and Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead during a Senate Estimates hearing earlier this year revealed that contracts signed by the Australian government that have handed billions of taxpayer dollars to American and British shipyards, supposedly to support the faster delivery of submarines, did not include standard protective clawback provisions. If we never see a submarine—as is possible—we don’t get any of our billions back.
The single most important downside of the US alliance, rarely mentioned, is arguably Australia’s military dependence on a foreign power. The Australian Defence Force is critically dependent on US supply and support for the conduct of all operations except those at the lowest level and of the shortest duration.
We were warned about this substantial sacrifice of national freedom of action. In 2001, a Parliamentary Library research paper stated that “it is almost literally true that Australia cannot go to war without the consent and support of the US”.
Foreign-dominated “sovereign” defence industry
Australia’s political and defence hierarchy regularly assert the need to build “a sovereign defence industrial base”. Most people would assume this to mean Australian-owned defence companies, with profits that stay local. This is not what the Defence Department means by it.
The world’s largest weapons companies, including BAE Systems (UK), Thales (France) and US companies Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, dominate the local defence industry. Almost all of the top 15 weapons contractors to the Defence Department are foreign-owned. In June 2024, Deputy Secretary Christopher Deeble, the head of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group—the Department’s arms-buying group—explained in a Senate Estimates hearing the government’s definition of “sovereign” in this regard. Deeble agreed with independent senator David Pocock that the local subsidiaries of foreign weapons multinationals, such as Lockheed Martin Australia, were not “sovereign” Australian companies. Nevertheless, he said, the Department considers such foreign-owned subsidiaries to be “part of the sovereign defence industry base here in Australia”.
In influence and dollar terms, foreign-owned companies comprise the vastly dominant proportion of the industrial base, not “part of” it. Research by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2017 showed that the top 15 weapons contractors received 91 per cent of the Department’s expenditure.
Force Posture Agreement
The erosion of Australian sovereignty accelerated in 2011, when Labor prime minister Julia Gillard agreed that up to 2,500 US Marines could be stationed in Darwin on a permanent rotation, and that an increased number of US military aircraft, including long range B-52 bombers, could fly in and out of the Top End and use Australia’s outback bombing ranges.
This agreement was expanded dramatically a few years later by the Force Posture Agreement, which provides the legal basis for an extensive militarisation of Australia by the US, particularly across the Top End.
The tri-nation military pact AUKUS, between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, was later negotiated and agreed to, in secret, by the Morrison Coalition government. AUKUS gained bipartisan support within one day of it being revealed to Anthony Albanese’s Labor opposition in September 2021. Among other things, AUKUS, in conjunction with the FPA, ensures that Australia’s navy will be tightly integrated with the US navy for the purpose of fighting China, and that the two navies can operate as one from Australian ports and waters.
Two months after Labor assumed office in May 2022, Marles was in Washington DC announcing that Labor would “continue the ambitious trajectory of its force posture cooperation” with the United States. Australia’s engagement with the US military would “move beyond interoperability to interchangeability” and Australia would “ensure we have all the enablers in place to operate seamlessly together, at speed”.
Non-lethal” F-35 parts
Australia’s newest high-tech major weapons systems make us more reliant than ever on the United States. As veteran journalist Brian Toohey reported in 2020, “The US … denies Australia access to the computer source code essential to operate key electronic components in its ships, planes, missiles, sensors and so on”. This includes the F-35 fighter jets, which both Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Marles have noted form the largest proportion of the air force’s fast jet capacity.
When it agreed to buy Lockheed Martin’s expensive and controversial fifth generation fighter jets, Australia became one of the early members of the F-35 consortium. As part of the deal, Australia negotiated a role for local industry in the F-35 global supply chain. As of June 2024, more than 75 Australian companies had shared in $4.6 billion worth of work, according to the Defence Department.
But there’s been a significant ethical downside. Israel, also a member of the F-35 consortium, is using its F-35s in its war against Gaza. Israel stands accused in the world’s highest court of conducting a genocide in Gaza. Every F-35 built contains Australian parts and components, and for some of these Australia is the sole source.
A senior Defence Department official, Hugh Jeffrey, said in a Senate Estimates hearing in June 2024:
“We are a member of the F-35 consortium [which] exists under a memorandum of understanding … That gives the defence industry opportunity to contribute to that supply chain. It also requires Australia to provide those contributions in good faith…” [emphasis added]
Jeffrey also noted that when assessing any export permit, “we have to have high confidence that, in agreeing to the permit, it’s consistent with our national security requirements and with our international legal obligations”.
What happens if the Department perceives a conflict between Australia’s “national security requirements” and its “international legal obligations”? Is Australia “required” to continue supplying Australian-made arms “in good faith”?
In June, after nine months of spreading disinformation, the Australian government was forced to admit that Australia was still supplying parts and components to the F-35 global supply chain. At the time of writing, the government was allowing this supply to continue despite repeated calls from the UN asking nations—and multinational weapons makers—to cease supplying weapons to Israel, including parts and components, or risk being responsible under international law for serious human rights violations.
Decoded: Defence Department’s deadly deceits
Michelle Fahy, July 10, 2024
Judge Orders Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Come Clean on Deleted Assange Docs
A judge in London has ruled that Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must explain what happened to certain documents in the Julian Assange case that it claims no longer exist, reports Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, January 10, 2025, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/01/10/judge-orders-cps-to-come-clean-on-deleted-assange-docs/
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has been waging a legal battle for seven years against the Crown Prosecution Service to discover the truth about a CPS claim that it deleted a number of documents Maurizi has sought in a Freedom of Information request about the case of Julian Assange.
Now a judge on the London First-tier Tribunal has ruled that the CPS must explain to Maurizi what it knows about when, why and how the documents were allegedly destroyed. The Jan. 2 ruling was first reported by Maurizi’s newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano on Friday.
Judge Penrose Foss has given the CPS until Feb. 21 to respond or it could be held in contempt of court.
The ruling says:
The Crown Prosecution Service must, by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025:
- (1) Confirm to the Appellant whether it held recorded information as to when, how and why any hard or electronic copies of emails referred to in the Appellant’s request to the Crown Prosecution Service of 12 December 2019 were deleted;
- (2) If it did hold such information, either supply the information to the Appellant by 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025 or serve a refusal notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, identifying the grounds on which the Crown Prosecution Service relies.A failure to comply with this Substituted Decision Notice could lead to contempt proceedings.”
Swedish Case
The documents Maurizi seeks were in relation to Sweden’s request to the U.K. for Assange’s extradition.
Her argument was heard before the three judges of the tribunal on Sept. 24, 2024. The allegedly deleted emails involved a CPS exchange with Sweden about a Swedish prosecutor’s attempt, beginning in 2010, to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher from Britain.
Assange was wanted at the time in Sweden for questioning during a preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual assault, which was dropped three times, definitively in 2017. He was never charged. After losing his battle against extradition to Sweden at the U.K. Supreme Court, Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012, fearing that Sweden would send him to the United States.
Assange spent seven years in the embassy protecting himself from arrest until April 2019, when British police dragged him from the diplomatic mission and threw him into London’s maximum security Belmarsh prison.
It was only when the U.S. realized it would lose on appeal after a four-year extradition battle that the Department of Justice cut a plea deal with Assange who was released on June 24, 2024 and returned to his native Australia.
Assange had been charged in the United States under the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes. Britain took an active role in Assange’s prosecution.
In the earlier Swedish case, the CPS sought to stop Sweden from going to the embassy to question him.
Seeking to learn more about Britain’s role, Maurizi first made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2015 for all emails between the British and Swedish governments concerning Assange.
Some of the emails she obtained showed political motivation on the part of the lead British prosecutor, Paul Close.
One email Maurizi obtained from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) revealed that Close appeared to be pressuring Swedish prosecutors to continue seeking Assange’s extradition instead of dropping the case or questioning him at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum.
“My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant [Julian Assange] in the UK,” Close wrote to the SPA, in 2011, according to one of the emails obtained by Maurizi.
Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, was head of the CPS at this time. He led the service from 2008 to 2013, though it is unknown what role Starmer may have played in this correspondence.
“Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!,” he wrote to Marianne Ny, Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, in 2012. A year after that, Close wrote, “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”
After Maurizi noticed a sizeable gap in the emails released to her she filed another FIOA seeking to obtain the missing emails.
The CPS first claimed that it had destroyed the emails. It said that when Close retired, his account along with his emails, were automatically destroyed.
But Maurizi did not buy it. She asked the court at the hearing last month to order the CPS to turn over “metadata” — data about data, such as file creation and modification dates, email sender and recipient addresses, timestamps, email routing information, keywords, and subject lines — proving the emails really were deleted and when.
“We have NO certainty whatsoever” that the emails were destroyed, Maurizi wrote in a message to Consortium News. Maurizi went to court because she believes the allegedly deleted emails could provide additional evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Assange.
She also wants metadata on a CPS document that it says is from 2012 explaining the CPS’ email deletion policy, which was only sent to her in 2023.
The supposed 2012 policy document says that 30 days after an email account is disabled, the “email data” associated with it “will be automatically deleted and no longer accessible.”
“How is it possible that they provided this document only in 2023, after multiple requests, multiple appeals, no-one ever mentioned it or knew about it?” Maurizi told CN.
Such a policy does not explain why thousands of emails related to an ongoing case would be deleted.
Denied on the Metadata
In order to figure out whether the 2012 policy document on deletions is genuine, Maurizi requested the relevant metadata of the file. She wanted to make sure it was not created years later as an attempt at retroactively justifying the deletion of Close’s emails.
Judge Foss for the Tribunal, however, ruled against Maurizi on the release of the metadata. Foss ruled
“In our view there was nothing in the letter or spirit of the 2019 Request as to when, how and why the emails of the CPS lawyer were deleted, which required the CPS to disclose the metadata of any document which substantiated the information it provided in response to that request. […]
It would be extraordinary, in our view, if every time a public authority was presented with a request for information recorded in such a way as to have meant that the creation of that record generated metadata, the request should be taken inevitably to require the metadata behind the form of record.”
Unsatisfactory Explanations
It is simply “not credible” Maurizi’s lawyer argued during the September hearing that Close neither sent nor received emails to Swedish prosecutors when Sweden issued the arrest warrant for Assange; when Assange took refuge in the embassy; and when he was granted asylum by Ecuador.
“[I]t has never been established that there was anything untoward in those gaps, that there were emails that weren’t published,” argued Rory Dunlop KC, on behalf of the prosecution authority, during his closing remarks.
“The CPS are keen to make clear that it has never been accepted and [it has] never been established one way or another,” he insisted. Over the years, in response to FOIA requests and appeals, the CPS’ position on the deletion of Close’s account has varied.
For example, in 2017, after Maurizi challenged the gap in the emails, a CPS employee said in a witness statement that, “If there ever existed further emails they were not printed off and filed” and therefore “are no longer in the possession of the CPS.”
According to an article by Maurizi in il Fatto Quotidiano, five years later, the CPS said in response to a separate FOIA request from Labour MP John McDonnell that “deletion of an email account of a former member of staff at the time would not have led to the deletion of emails held on the case file.”
The CPS also admitted to McDonnell that they are only aware of one other case in the last decade which resulted in the premature destruction of case materials, according to Maurizi’s article.
The Sept. 24 tribunal also heard that the CPS’ Records Management Manual states that general correspondence “should be retained in the case file within five years from the date of the most recent correspondence,” which would not allow for deletion upon retirement by the prosecutor on the case.
Mohamed Elmaazi contributed to this article.
Critical Archival Encounters and the Evolving Historiography of the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government (Part 4)
COMMENT. This is heavy stuff.
I include it because it goes to explain how it came about that the USA pretty much owns Australia. USA has pretty much owned every Prime Minister since Whitlam.
Gough Whitlam had the guts to question the value of USA’s Pine Gap military intelligence hub.
So he paid the price for his courage
January 10, 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Jenny Hocking, Continued from Part 3
Kerr always claimed that the decision to dismiss the Whitlam government was his alone, that the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser, did not know and that he had spoken to the High Court Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick only after he had reached his decision, and that the Palace was in no way involved. Sir Martin Charteris wrote on the Queen’s behalf to the Speaker, Gordon Scholes, soon after the dismissal; “The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution”.
This narrative of the Governor-General faced with an impossible decision and with no other option available but to dismiss the elected government, was well captured by the Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial the following day: “the course he [Kerr] has taken was the only course open to him”. In its recitation of Kerr’s statement of reasons, released within hours of the dismissal, the editorial makes no mention of the half-Senate election despite its pronouncement on whether other options were available to Kerr.
The invisibility of the half-Senate election is one of the notable features of much of the immediate commentary. Which is all the more puzzling since Whitlam was at Yarralumla on 11 November in order to call the half-Senate election, as Kerr well knew. Yet, in his statement of reasons, Kerr made scant reference to it and indeed misrepresented the half-Senate election in a way that then carried into much of the historical assessments to come………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Whitlam was due to announce the half-Senate election to the House of Representatives on the afternoon of 11 November 1975, and his signed letter to Kerr setting out the details for it was in his hand as he arrived in the Governor-General’s study. It can be found today among Kerr’s papers in the National Archives, with Kerr’s handwritten notation in the upper right corner: “the recommendation was not made”. The early histories of the dismissal were unaware of just how close Whitlam had been to calling the half-Senate election, some see it only as an option considered and not taken, while others fail to mention it at all.
………………………… The half-Senate election takes its place as a critical dismissal moment much overlooked by historical assessments, alongside the 1974 double dissolution election and the motion of no confidence in Malcolm Fraser two hours after his appointment as Prime Minister.
……………………………………………………. In a strident editorial rebuke “Sir John was wrong”, The Age alone among the immediate commentaries on Kerr’s precipitate action, which it termed his “Yarralumla coup d’etat”, implicitly invoked Hasluck’s response in 1974 of granting the election pending the passage of supply:
We are not convinced the decision he [Kerr] took was the only one open to him, or that it was necessary to take it now […] we should like to know if Sir John considered the possibility of urging Mr. Fraser to allow the Senate to pass interim Supply so that a half-Senate election could be held.
Central to the narrative of lonely inevitability, Fraser and Kerr repeatedly denied having any prior contact or warning before the dismissal,
…………………… after a decade of denial Fraser admitted his prior knowledge of the dismissal and his agreement on the terms of his appointment with Kerr. …………………..
………………………………………………………………………………It is an understatement to say that this shared agreement between the Governor-General and the soon to be appointed Prime Minister lacking the confidence of the House, regarding a policy decision directly affecting the Governor-General himself, raises serious political, ethical, and constitutional issues………………………………………………………. more https://theaimn.net/critical-archival-encounters-and-the-evolving-historiography-of-the-dismissal-of-the-whitlam-government-part-4/
Los Angeles fire a wake up call for Australia
COMMENT. Let’s be aware of the danger to nuclear facilities. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is located approximately 18 miles (29 km) northwest of Hollywood and approximately 30 miles (48 km) northwest of Downtown Los Angeles. The hot lab suffered a number of fires involving radioactive materials. For example, in 1957, a fire in the hot cell “got out of control and … massive contamination” resulted. A radioactive fire occurred in 1971, involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products. The 2018 Woolsey Fire began at SSFL and burned about 80% of the site.
In 2021, the three hour documentary In the Dark of the Valley depicted mothers advocating for cleanup of the site who have children suffering from cancer believed to be caused by the contamination. This could happen in Australia, if Peter Dutton’s foolish nuclear scheme ever came to pass.
January 9, 2025, Friends of the Earth Australia, https://theaimn.net/los-angeles-fire-a-wake-up-call-for-australia/
The fires currently tearing through Los Angeles are a reminder that Australia can no longer rely on northern hemisphere nations for water-bombing aircraft and firefighters during our summer.
“During our Black Summer, more than 1,000 people came from North America to assist in firefighting efforts. Australia recently sent multiple teams to assist with the fires in North America. This sharing of resources, including aircraft, firefighters and specialists, is how we fight fires in the 21st century” said Friends of the Earth campaigns co-ordinator Cam Walker. “And the fact that fires are raging in mid winter in the USA highlights that the world has entered a new phase – the era of the pyrocene – and that our old ways of fighting fires needs to change.”
Normally Australia leases up to six Large Air Tankers (LATs) which are each allocated to a specific state or territory, but which are shared around the country according to greatest need. While we need up to 7 LATs in a bad fire season, we only own one (which is owned by the NSW Rural Fire Service) and we now lease one year round.
The other planes are leased in after their post season maintenance in the northern hemisphere. They all come from North America and arrive in the country during the traditional ‘shoulder’ season. This shoulder is rapidly disappearing as planes are needed for larger sections of the year in each hemisphere.
“As fire seasons extend in both hemispheres, we face the risk of being unable to secure leases for LATs in coming years”.
There is a clear link between the current fires around LA and climate change. For instance, a 2016 study found climate change enhanced the drying of organic matter and doubled the number of large fires between 1984 and 2015 in the western United States (source: NOAA).
After the Royal Commission into Natural Disaster Arrangements that was held to reflect on the lessons of the 2019-20 Black Summer fire season, the commission recommended (Rec 8.1) that the federal government create ‘an Australian-based and registered national aerial firefighting capability, to be tasked according to greatest national need”. In responding to the commission, the federal government decided not pursue the possibility of Australia establishing its own fleet of LATs.
The commission also noted that “extreme weather has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change (and that) further global warming over the next 20 to 30 years is inevitable”.
Mr Walker continued: “In light of all the available science about longer and more intense fire seasons in both hemispheres and the increased difficulty of securing LATs on lease from North America, the federal government must commit to establishing an Australian owned fleet of LATs before the 2025/26 budget”.
The current federal government has taken firefighting capacity seriously and provided significant funding for water-bombing aircraft. With a review of aerial firefighting capability currently underway (expected to report back later this year) now is the right time to acknowledge the reality that we are facing and commit to buying a sovereign fleet of LATs that will be permanently based in Australia.
In addition to buying a fleet of publicly owned LATs, Australia must:
- Stop contributing to even worse global heating, which will continue to lengthen fire seasons and other negative climate change impacts. In the first instance it must stop exporting vast volumes of fossil fuels
- Fast track the development of new technology that will ensure rapid detection of new start fires
- Investigate establishing a national remote area firefighting team which could be deployed as needed to assist state and territory firefighting efforts.
A national remote area firefighting team. As fire threatens World Heritage Areas and national parks across the country, it is time to establish a national remote area firefighting team, which would be funded by the federal government and tasked with supporting existing crews in the states and territories.
Long fire seasons stretch local resources, and sometimes remote areas such as national parks need to be abandoned in order to focus on defending human assets. Having an additional, mobile national team that could be deployed quickly to areas of greatest need would help us protect the wonderful legacy of national parks and World Heritage Areas across the country.
This was recommended by a Senate inquiry after the devastating fires in Tasmania of 2016.
Critical Archival Encounters and the Evolving Historiography of the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government (Part 2)
I will never forget the day when I, living in a country area, ran to answer a phone call. It was my mother, in the faraway city. And I’ll never forget her exact words: “The queen’s man has sacked our elected Prime Minister!”
My Mum summed it up. Later, I have realised that this was a case of the UK government toeing the line of the USA government, and making sure that Australia got that USA military intelligence hub, Pine Gap.
January 8, 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Jenny Hocking
Continued from Part 1
After years of legal action, still absent from public view are crucial documents from a most contentious time in British imperial history: the 1947 and 1948 diaries covering the Mountbattens’ shared involvements in pre-Independence India, transition and partition, among “scores of other files” not yet released.
These remain locked away, and Lownie has spent £250,000 of his own funds in pursuit of public access to papers which constituted a purportedly public archive, while the Cabinet office has spent £180,000 keeping them secret. Particularly disquieting is Lownie’s recent claims that he has himself become the target of security surveillance as he continues to pursue the closed Mountbatten files.
Somewhere among those voluminous Mountbatten papers are letters between Mountbatten and the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, about the dismissal of the Whitlam government. These letters were briefly cited by Mountbatten’s authorised biographer Philip Ziegler in which Mountbatten declared that he “much admired” Kerr’s “courageous and constitutionally correct” action in dismissing Gough Whitlam.
Several years ago, I visited Southampton University hoping to see Mountbatten’s dismissal correspondence with Kerr since, as discussed below, bizarre circumstance means that it no longer exists in Kerr’s papers in the National Archives of Australia. Although Ziegler had been granted access and had quoted from Mountbatten’s congratulatory letter to Kerr, I was denied access to the diaries and letters. Instead, I was handed some thin, rather desultory files containing a handful of itineraries, dinner placements, menus, and invitations to Mountbatten during his visit to Australia. No diaries and certainly no letters between Mountbatten and Kerr.
……………………………In relation to Kerr’s secret correspondence with the Queen, “the Palace letters” regarding the dismissal, it was the use of this uniquely powerful word in the archival lexicon – “personal” – that had placed the letters outside the reach of the Archives Act 1983 and necessitated an arduous Federal Court action to challenge their continued closure. Livsey notes in relation to the migrated Kenyan archive that the construction of “regimes of secrecy” in which the label “personal” was used to control access to and knowledge of British colonial practice; “files labelled ‘Personal’ could be consulted by white British officials only and ‘should not be sighted by local eyes’”…………………..
Lownie’s now four-year legal battle has been described as eerily similar to the Palace letters legal action which I took against the National Archives of Australia in 2016, arguing that the Queen’s correspondence with the Governor-General was not personal, and seeking its release. The case ended in the High Court in 2020 with a resounding 6:1 decision in my favour, the Court ruling that the Palace letters are, as I had argued, not personal and that they are Commonwealth records and come under the open access provisions of the Archives Act. The letters were released in full in July 2020, in a striking rebuff to the claimed convention of royal secrecy on which the Archives had in part relied.
…………………………………….. At its most significant, the denial of access to royal documents as “personal” enables the sophistry that the monarch remains politically neutral at all times to persist……………….
…………Although the Queen was publicly a careful adherent of that core requirement of neutrality, something the “meddling Prince” Charles most assertively was and is not, Hocking argues that “the much vaunted political neutrality is a myth, enabled and perpetuated by secrecy”. Professor Anne Twomey similarly notes that “If neutrality can only be maintained by secrecy, this implies that it does not, in fact, exist”.
Our own history gives us a powerful example of the way in which archival secrecy functions as a Royal protector, casting a veil over breaches of the claimed political neutrality of the Crown, in the changing historiography of the dismissal of the Whitlam government. ……………………….
For decades, the dismissal history was constrained by the impenetrable barrier of “Royal secrecy” which denied us access firstly, to any of Kerr’s correspondence with the Queen, ………………………………………….
Sir John Kerr’s abrupt dismissal, without warning, of the Whitlam government on 11 November 1975 just as Whitlam was to call a half-Senate election, was an unprecedented use of the Governor-General’s reserve powers and “one of the most controversial and tumultuous events in the modern history of the nation”, as the Federal Court described it.
These powers, derived from those of an autocratic Monarch untroubled by parliamentary sovereignty and even less by the electoral expression of the popular will, had not been used in England for nearly two hundred years, and never in Australia…………………………………………………………………. more https://theaimn.net/critical-archival-encounters-and-the-evolving-historiography-of-the-dismissal-of-the-whitlam-government-part-2/
Jenny Hocking is emeritus professor at Monash University, Distinguished Whitlam Fellow at the Whitlam Institute at Western Sydney University and award-winning biographer of Gough Whitlam. Her latest book is The Palace Letters: The Queen, the governor-general, and the plot to dismiss Gough Whitlam. You can follow Jenny on X @palaceletters.
PM sharpens attack on nuclear in election-style tour
Maitland Mercury, By Kat Wong and Tess Ikonomou, January 7 2025 –
Anthony Albanese is testing new lines of attack as he hurtles through key battlegrounds ahead of an official election campaign.
The prime minister has embarked a whirlwind tour of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia just months before voters are expected to go to the polls.
A federal election must be held by late May and, while Mr Albanese is yet to pull the trigger, the trip might be seen as a soft campaign launch………………………………………………….
Labor has renewed its offensive against the opposition’s $330 billion bid to set up seven nuclear reactors.
It initially aimed its criticism at safety and environment concerns, leaning on the nuclear fears of older generations.
But its latest attack highlights cost, viability and time, with a particular focus on economic consequences for the Sunshine State.
Fresh analysis released by Labor shows the coalition’s plan assumes it will cost Queensland more than $872 billion in lost output by 2050 and treasurer Jim Chalmers said Mr Dutton’s “economic madness” would leave Queensland households worse off.
“As a Queenslander, I won’t sit back and watch Peter Dutton push energy prices up and growth down right across the state,” he said…………………………………………………………… more https://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/8860529/pm-sharpens-attack-on-nuclear-in-election-style-tour/
The continual cover up – Jenny Hocking on the strange disappearance of Gough Whitlam’s ASIO file
January 5, 2025 , Australian Independent Media, By Jenny Hocking
And it is not just Gough Whitlam’s ASIO file that has been “culled” by the National Archives of Australia. The relevant Government House Guest Books at the time of the Dismissal have disappeared and the entire archive of Kerr’s prominent supporters, including Lord Mountbatten, was accidentally burnt in the Yarralumla incinerator.
I was made sharply aware of the conceptual and physical fragility of archives as historical representation 20 years ago through a chance encounter, or more precisely a lost encounter, with Gough Whitlam’s Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) file. I had stumbled onto Whitlam’s security file quite unexpectedly through a reference to it in another, unrelated, file. Clearly, any file maintained by the domestic security service on Gough Whitlam would be a critically important historical record in itself, and even more so given the Whitlam government’s fractious relationship with the security services and the well-known surveillance excesses of ASIO and the state Special Branches at that time.
To find evidence of the existence of an ASIO file on Whitlam that I had never expected was a rare moment of archival anticipation. That anticipation was dashed four months later when the Archives informed me that, having maintained this security file for nearly 40 years, it had been destroyed in a routine culling, just weeks before I requested it. Although Archives assured me that, according to ASIO’s records, the now destroyed file “contained material of a vetting nature only”, this is now impossible to verify. A request for access to the ASIO documents referred to in this response and on which this claim about the nature of the file was based, went unanswered.
As a former Prime Minister, Whitlam was a recognised “Commonwealth Person”, for the purposes of the Archives management systems. These are “individuals who have had a close association with the Commonwealth” and whose records are therefore expressly collected and preserved for history. Notwithstanding that acknowledged significance, the Archives had issued an authorisation for ASIO to destroy Whitlam’s security file within weeks of my request to view it. It brings to mind Blouin’s arch observation that “a historian working in state archives, particularly on topics related to the recent past, is constantly engaged in some way in a struggle with the politics of state-protected knowledge”.
The misplaced destruction of Whitlam’s security file compounds the unsettled history of the dismissal by allowing the circulation of competing speculations over its coincident erasure: was this a vetting file as ASIO stated, did the file identify agents or surveillance methods, would its release have led to files on other members of the Whitlam government? This latter is no idle speculation. ASIO was already monitoring deputy Prime Minister Dr Jim Cairns, whose ASIO “dossier” was sensationally leaked to The Bulletin in 1974, causing immense damage to the Whitlam government and to Cairns personally. The possibility of security files on other ministers and even on Whitlam himself is only stirred by the deliberate destruction of ASIO’s vetting file. In the absence of the file itself an already clouded history becomes further compromised.
It was this episode that introduced me to the force of what Elkins terms “archival scepticism” in archive-based research. Whatever the reason for its apparent destruction, the Archives had successfully removed Whitlam’s ASIO file from public view and therefore from the consideration of history. In doing so it had played an important role in the construction of the dismissal in history, in which a security file on Gough Whitlam does not and cannot now feature. This underscores precisely, if there were any doubt about this, that archives are not neutral replicators of documented history, but politicised re-creators of it.
The Lost Archive: Government House Guest Books
In 2010, I first requested access to the Government House guest books held by the Archives, which provide the details of visits and visitors to “their Excellencies” at Yarralumla………………………….. The guest books appear regularly from July 1961 until July 1974, before stopping altogether until December 1982.
…………………………………………. The guest books for 1975 are now officially lost.
These missing guest books add fuel to the longstanding speculation that security and defence officials, notably the Chief Defence Scientist Dr John Farrands as the recognised authority on Pine Gap and the Joint Facilities, had briefed Kerr in the week before the dismissal about mounting security and defence concerns over Whitlam’s exposure of CIA agents working at Pine Gap, and his planned Prime Ministerial statement on this in the House of Representatives on the afternoon of 11 November 1975. ……………………………………….
The Burnt Archive: Sir John Kerr’s Prominent Supporters
In 1978, soon after Kerr left office, a cache of letters “of outstanding value” to Kerr was accidentally reduced to ashes in the Yarralumla incinerator………………………………
Kerr had sought these congratulatory letters for use in his forthcoming autobiography Matters for Judgement. Among his correspondents was the Queen’s second cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s uncle and King Charles III’s great mentor; the former Governor-General and distant royal relation, Viscount De L’Isle; and other prominent individuals supporting Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam. These names alone indicate that these burnt letters were as important to history as they were to Kerr. Were it not for this secondary file of correspondence between Smith and Kerr detailing the saga of the “burnt letters”, the existence and apparent inflammatory end of Kerr’s correspondence with his minor aristocratic supporters would never have come to light. The letters themselves now never will.
Philip Ziegler’s authorised biography of Mountbatten, however, gives just a glimpse of this story. Ziegler recounts that Mountbatten wrote to Kerr days after the dismissal, congratulating him on his “courageous and correct action” in dismissing Whitlam. It was a remarkably partisan royal intercession, and Mountbatten was not alone among Kerr’s royal supporters. We now know, thanks to letters released in 2020 following the High Court’s decision in my legal action, that King Charles also fully supported Kerr’s actions. Charles’s letter to Kerr, written in starkly similar terms to Mountbatten’s weeks after the dismissal, leaves no doubt of Charles’s support for Kerr; “What you did […] was right and the courageous thing to do.”
As Kerr later wrote to the South Australian lieutenant-governor, Sir Walter Crocker, “I never had any doubt as to what the Palace’s attitude was on this important point.”
*************************
These are extracts from Professor Jenny Hocking’s essay ‘Critical Archival Encounters and the Evolving Historiography of the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 11 April 2024.
Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley – Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. This article was originally published on Pearls and Irritations and has been republished with permission. https://theaimn.net/the-continual-cover-up-jenny-hocking-on-the-strange-disappearance-of-gough-whitlams-asio-file/
The polar playground for a suicidal species?
https://theaimn.net/the-polar-playground-for-a-suicidal-species/ 7 January 25
Where to begin on this mind-boggling story about epic changes on a very small planet?
Well, let’s begin on the fun part. The Australian Antarctic Program encourages some pretty innocuous recreational activities, plus of course, encouragement for tourists to come, and to learn about the polar world. So that’s OK, I suppose. But lately, in the news, there is growing concern that tourists, Australians in particular, are taking such a playful attitude to Antarctica, that they are risking their personal safety.
Interesting that the video above puts the blame on TikTok for encouraging the fun and danger. But tourism itself is good for increasing education about Antarctica. As long as individuals personally behave safely, that’s fine, isn’t it?
But what about planetary safety?
What Australians, and most of the world, learn about Antarctica, is that it’s pretty, and has penguins, Oh, and the ice is melting a bit, too. And that’s about it. The media does not trouble our complacent little minds with information about the thermohaline ocean circulation, the atmospheric circulation patterns, the carbon-sequestration of krill, the polar vortex…. Much too hard for us, in this cricket-tennis season.
Right now, Northern Europe and parts of the USA are experiencing extreme cold weather. No doubt some people would say that this disproves global heating, climate change. Alas, these extremes, emanating from the Arctic, by the polar vortex, are exacerbated by global heating. The polar vortex is a complex system, difficult to grasp, for the average news reader, so it is part of the whole poorly known, global climate system.
Antarctica is at the other end of the world – not connected to all this? Well, not if you ignore the global thermohaline circulation, among other things like sea level rise.
Global thermohaline circulation
Professor Elisabeth Leane, Professor of Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania says – What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica. Its future will shape the future of the planet
Which brings me to the question of safety in relation to Antarctica – planetary, not just personal.
And here’s what the University of Tasmania says about it – Antarctica’s tipping points threaten global climate stability.
The map above is from the University of Tasmania’s report by international climate scientists . It identifies the various cascading tipping points and their interactions and pressures on the ecosystem.
For those who care about the climate change issue, and about Australia and the Antarctic, I would urge them to watch, and persist with, this brilliant report by climate researcher Paul Beckwith – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WccDhnM8R8
Beckwith explains the potential tipping points identified by the study and their interrelationships , and adds the issue of sea ice loss. Critical issues are ice sheets, ocean acidification, ocean circulation, species redistribution, invasive species, permafrost melting, local pollution, chemical impacts, social impacts, local pollution and the Antarctic Treaty System. He goes on to explain with excellent graphics, the global thermohaline circulation, and then, in-depth, the records on sea ice, and then on to his detailed study on the tiny krill or light shrimp, and their global importance. Finally, Beckwith outlines the politics, the various national claims in the Antarctic Treaty System. The scientists’ conclusion – the urgent need for action on climate. Heavy stuff. Fascinating stuff. He finishes with a reminder of the unique role of that amazing critter the krill.
If you want a more concise discussion of the University of Tasmania’s December remarkable workshop of international marine scientists – go to Radio Ecoshock – World-changing Tipping Points – In Antarctica !
The “mainstream media” rarely covers climate change in any depth. For decades, the public has been informed very superficially on this life and death matter for our survival. The dedicated scientists produce their research results, but the media seem to find these too difficult, or too “political” to bother to report on them properly. The December 2024 “emergency summit” of international polar scientists in Tasmania barely got a mention in the Australian or international press.
You have to go to alternative media, to get any real insight into what is happening to the climate of our planet home. For decades now, Paul Beckwith has being producing his highly informative and wonderfully illustrated videos, on Youtube. Meanwhile Alex Smith has been doing the same sort of thing on radio and podcast, and print, – on Radio Ecoshock, which is heard in Australia on Community Radio 3CR.
In 2025, it is ever more urgent for people to wade through the morass of “social” media, and corporate media, and “alternative” media, to find the facts on climate change. Paul Beckwith and Radio Ecoshock are two examples of a rare and endangered human species – journalists who do their homework on climate change.
Could AI soon make dozens of billion-dollar nuclear stealth attack submarines more expensive and obsolete?
By Wayne Williams, 5 Jan 25, https://www.techradar.com/pro/could-ai-soon-make-dozens-of-billion-dollar-nuclear-stealth-attack-submarines-more-expensive-and-obsolete
Artificial intelligence can detect undersea movement better than humans.
AI can process far more data from a far more sensors than human operators can ever achieve
But the game of cat-and-mouse means that countermeasures do exist to confuse AI
Increase in compute performance and ubiquity of always-on passive sensors need also be accounted for.
The rise of AI is set to reduce the effectiveness of nuclear stealth attack submarines.
These advanced billion-dollar subs, designed to operate undetected in hostile waters, have long been at the forefront of naval defense. However, AI-driven advancements in sensor technology and data analysis are threatening their covert capabilities, potentially rendering them less effective.
An article by Foreign Policy and IEEE Spectrum now claims AI systems can process vast amounts of data from distributed sensor networks, far surpassing the capabilities of human operators. Quantum sensors, underwater surveillance arrays, and satellite-based imaging now collect detailed environmental data, while AI algorithms can identify even subtle anomalies, such as disturbances caused by submarines. Unlike human analysts, who might overlook minor patterns, AI excels at spotting these tiny shifts, increasing the effectiveness of detection systems.
Game of cat-and-mouse
AI’s increasing role could challenge the stealth of submarines like those in the Virginia-class, which rely on sophisticated engineering to minimize their detectable signatures.
Noise-dampening tiles, vibration-reducing materials, and pump-jet propulsors are designed to evade detection, but AI-enabled networks are increasingly adept at overcoming these methods. The ubiquity of passive sensors and continuous improvements in computational performance are increasing the reach and resolution of these detection systems, creating an environment of heightened transparency in the oceans.
Despite these advances, the game of cat-and-mouse persists, as countermeasures are, inevitably, being developed to outwit AI detection.
These tactics, as explored in the Foreign Policy and IEEE Spectrum piece, include noise-camouflaging techniques that mimic natural marine sounds, deploying uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs) to create diversions, and even cyberattacks aimed at corrupting the integrity of AI algorithms. Such methods seek to confuse and overwhelm AI systems, maintaining an edge in undersea warfare.
As AI technology evolves, nations will need to weigh up the escalating costs of nuclear stealth submarines against the potential for their obsolescence. Countermeasures may provide temporary degree of relief, but the increasing prevalence of passive sensors and AI-driven analysis suggests that traditional submarine stealth is likely to face diminishing returns in the long term.
Can true nuclear independence be achieved without ending the US Alliance?
By Donald Wilson, Jan 4, 2025, https://johnmenadue.com/can-true-nuclear-independence-be-achieved-without-ending-the-us-alliance/
Australia’s historical commitment to nuclear disarmament is facing new challenges, as critics say the nation’s alliance with the United States is leading to a conflicted stance on nuclear non-proliferation.
While Australia has actively participated in global nuclear arms control initiatives, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), it simultaneously relies on the so-called “US nuclear umbrella” for security. This duality has led to ongoing debate about whether Australia’s security policies align with its disarmament principles.
Australia’s approach to nuclear non-proliferation has shifted over recent years. In 2016, Australia voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution aimed at creating a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons. The following year, it refused to join negotiations that led to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). As a result, Australia remains one of the few regional countries not signed onto this treaty, despite a 2018 resolution by the Australian Labor Party to consider joining under a future government.
Critics argue that if Australia were to adopt the TPNW, it would be compelled to prohibit any support for other countries’ nuclear weapons programs—potentially forcing the closure of Pine Gap, a key joint defence facility with the US. Yet government supporters claim that distancing from the US would leave Australia vulnerable, especially amid regional tensions with China.
However, questions have arisen about the reliability of this “nuclear umbrella.” Currently, US military systems, including missile defence, offer limited protection against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). After investing over $400 billion in missile defence research and development, no system has yet achieved dependable protection against ICBMs. Critics argue this leaves Australia exposed rather than safeguarded, despite assurances from the US.
In addition, Australia’s recent defence agreements, particularly the AUKUS pact and the US-Australia Force Posture Agreement (FPA), have raised concerns over sovereignty. Signed in 2014, the FPA allows the US to store and control defence equipment on Australian soil. According to Article VII of the agreement, the US retains “exclusive control” over its prepositioned military supplies in Australia, with full ownership rights, effectively restricting Australian authority over the use of these materials.
Article XII of the FPA states that US government vehicles, aircraft, and vessels are exempt from inspection by Australian authorities without US consent. This clause has fuelled arguments that the FPA has compromised Australia’s independence by allowing the US to make defence decisions within Australian borders. For instance, US B2 bombers have launched from Australian bases in operations overseas, reportedly without consulting the Australian public.
As Australia contemplates its nuclear policy, the debate over whether it can maintain both its alliance with the United States and a commitment to nuclear non-proliferation will likely intensify. This complex question has implications not only for Australia’s defence but also for its sovereignty and international standing in the movement toward nuclear disarmament.
The $80 billion question buried in Dutton’s nuclear power plan.
“Companies can go bust, but the nuclear waste is still going to be there. It has to be owned by the government.”
Two elements of the opposition’s nuclear plan are not included in the costings – waste management and public liability for disasters.
Mike Foley, January 3, 2025 , https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-80-billion-question-buried-in-dutton-s-nuclear-power-plan-20241218-p5kzg9.html
Decommissioning any plants built under the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan could cost more than $80 billion, and taxpayers would have to foot the bill.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s planned seven nuclear plants, with a likely 14 large-scale reactors, would be publicly owned, so taxpayers would be liable for clean-up costs from the radioactive sites and any accidents during operation.
Last month, Britain’s National Audit Office found that the bill to clean up its old nuclear sites, which date back to the 1940s, would be $260 billion.
About $200 billion of this is to decommission Britain’s original Sellafield site for weapons and energy generation, with contaminated buildings and radioactive waste.
Another $48 billion is to decommission eight other nuclear sites, which now range from 36 to 48 years old, at a cost of $6 billion each. They are set to be handed back by a private operator to the government for decommissioning from 2028.
University of NSW energy researcher Mark Diesendorf said international experience showed the cost of decommissioning a nuclear reactor could be roughly in line with its construction cost, which the Coalition has said would be about $9 billion a reactor in Australia.
“For a rough approximation, you’re looking at probably the equivalent of the construction cost,” Diesendorf said.
If the Coalition’s plan to build 14 nuclear reactors by the mid-2040s is realised, the decommissioning bill would be roughly $82 billion to $125 billion in today’s dollars.
Private firm Frontier Economics produced costings of the opposition’s plan that included decommissioning in an overall $331 billion bill to build 14 gigawatts of nuclear generation. However, it is unclear what price was attached to clean-up and whether it is plausible, given Frontier has declined to release the assumptions it used.
Frontier said the government’s policy to boost renewables to nearly 100 per cent of electricity generation by 2050 would cost $595 billion – a figure the federal government has rejected. Labor says nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy generation.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said the Coalition’s plan was cheaper than the government’s renewable energy goals.
“Unlike the Coalition, Labor refuses to calculate the full cost of its plan, such as the decommissioning costs of massive offshore wind projects in the six zones it has identified off the Australian coast,” O’Brien said.
Griffith University Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe said Diesendorf’s assumption that decommissioning a large-scale reactor would cost the same as building it was “sensible”.
“The World Nuclear Association has information about the 25 reactors that have been decommissioned, and the figures vary enormously,” Lowe said.
“The figure of about $6 billion per reactor sounds about the average figure, assuming that there are no complications.”
The opposition has said its nuclear reactors would operate for 80 years, and University of NSW Associate Professor Edward Obbard, a nuclear materials engineer, said it made “perfect sense” for a country to hold the liability for nuclear decommissioning, given the cost and timescale required.
“I don’t think there’s any alternative to the state being responsible for decommissioning a nuclear power program,” Obbard said.
“Companies can go bust, but the nuclear waste is still going to be there. It has to be owned by the government.”
The government could choose to isolate an old nuclear reactor once it reaches its end of life, and leave it alone for several decades until the radioactivity had reduced, he said.
Two elements of the opposition’s nuclear plan are not included in the costings – waste management and public liability for disasters.
Diesendorf and Lowe said public liability in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, given the $290 billion clean-up bill from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Where is the ‘mature debate’ about the health impacts of nuclear power?
By Margaret Beavis, January 2 2025, Canberra times 2/1/25 https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8857513/margaret-beavis-health-risks-near-nuclear-plants-exposed/
When it comes to nuclear radiation, there is a clear disconnect between the medical evidence and the views of the Coalition. Since the 1950s we have known there is a link between X-rays in pregnant women and leukemia and other cancers in their children. It is not for nothing there are signs in every radiology department asking if you are pregnant.
The current shrill denunciations of potential health risks associated with nuclear power plants as a “scare campaign” may yet prove to be an own goal, as it has drawn attention to the issue. Communities considering hosting a nuclear reactor should be aware of the evidence regarding real-world health impacts. Informed consent matters, in politics as well as medicine.
Extra cases of leukaemia occurring in children living near nuclear power plants have caused concern and controversy over decades. In the 1980s excess cases of leukaemia and lymphoma were noticed around the Sellafield nuclear plant in England.
A UK government investigation unexpectedly found that the risks for leukaemia and lymphoma were higher than in the surrounding population. In 2007, the US Department of Energy examined all the reliable data available worldwide, confirming a significant increase in leukaemia for children living near nuclear power plants..
The clearest findings on this subject come from a large national German study from 2008, which examined leukaemia among children living near any of Germany’s 16 operating nuclear plants over a 25-year period.
It showed that the risk of leukaemia more than doubled for children living within 5 km of a nuclear plant. Nuclear proponents quote a UN study with an 80 km radius showing no harm, but the much larger distance dilutes any problems for those living much closer.
Just last June, a very large (over seven million people) meta-analysis of reliable data from a range of studies found residents of any age living 20-30 km from nuclear power stations had an average 5% increased cancer risk, and again children under five were the worst impacted. Thyroid cancer increased by 17 per cent and leukemia by 9 per cent.
For workers in the nuclear industries, there is also clear evidence of increased risk of death from cancer. Indeed, recent findings show even some non-cancer diseases are increased, such as heart attack and stroke.
The best evidence for this comes from INWORKS, a multi-country study of over 300,000 radiation industry workers observed for more than 30 years. Their radiation exposures and health outcomes were carefully monitored and compared with the general population.
The cancers caused by radiation blend in with other cancers – they are not like the characteristic mesothelioma caused by asbestos. The heart attacks and strokes have the same problem. As a result, it takes large population studies and careful long-term monitoring to know what the risks are.
The Coalition has also made claims linking radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine to nuclear power that are patently false and deliberately misleading.
A letter sent by Coalition MPs to their constituents earlier this year claimed that: “Nuclear energy already plays a major role in medicine and healthcare, diagnosing and treating thousands of Australians every day”.
We do not have, and have never had, nuclear power in Australia, and the nuclear power proposal has no connection to our world class nuclear medicine, radiology or radiotherapy services.
Doctors are increasingly concerned about the radiation exposures from medical imaging, particularly in children. CT scans and nuclear medicine scans are done only when essential, and the benefit outweighs the risks. We worry about cumulative lifetime exposures, especially in children.
But perhaps the biggest health issue of all with the Coalition’s proposal is the increased use of coal and gas, for decades to come. Climate change has started, and we have to take action as soon as possible.
From a health perspective, recklessly worsening future heat waves, fires, storms, floods and droughts by delaying the transition from coal for political gain is unconscionable.
Finally, the Coalition’s response to my public submission and testimony to a government inquiry has been to attack me as a past Greens candidate. They neglect to report my qualifications to speak on this.
In playing the man and failing to address the evidence, they fail their own request for an adult conversation on nuclear energy.
The Coalition’s coal-keeper plan
The widespread concern among energy experts is that the introduction of nuclear into the power system would result in renewables, including rooftop solar, being switched off for extended periods, lest the grid be overwhelmed with power, and to assure the financial viability of nuclear generators.
According to analysis by the peak body for the renewables industry, the Smart Energy Council, “up to five million rooftop solar systems will be switched off, and the average power price bill will more than double” as a result.
The Coalition’s nuclear proposal offers no outlook for lower household bills, and the political debate obscures the fact that the plan is undeliverable.
By Mike Seccombe, 21 Dec 24, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/environment/2024/12/21/the-coalitions-coal-keeper-plan
There are really only two possibilities. Either Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor do not understand the basics of the Coalition’s signature nuclear power policy or they are deliberately, repeatedly broadcasting a falsehood.
At December 13’s Brisbane press conference where the opposition leader and shadow treasurer released the long-awaited costings of the Coalition’s nuclear plan, contained in modelling by Frontier Economics, both men said it showed their policy would cut electricity bills by 44 per cent.
In fairness it should be noted the council has a big vested interest, but the fact remains that Price’s published modelling appears to ignore the impact of nuclear on renewables. As Hamilton noted, in Price’s modelling “these capacity factors [that is, the amount of time renewables are generating power] do not change with the introduction of nuclear producing 38 per cent of generation nearly 24/7.”
In response to the Hamilton critique, Price argued it was already the case that renewables were sometimes turned down or off because there is too much generation. He said this problem would increase as the share of renewables increased.
“This is because you have to build vast amounts of renewables to produce enough electricity to meet demand, and since you never know whether they will produce at the same time or at different times, inevitably you end up at times with too much electricity.”
He did not, however, address the cost issue. And he conceded that under his model, less renewables infrastructure would be built.
The broader point, however, is that this was not apparent in his published work.
Normal protocol in the modelling world is to provide detail of the data on which a model is built, says Professor Warwick McKibbin of the ANU Crawford Centre.
“You should be transparent. That’s just standard good practice. If you can’t see that data that underpins the work, then how do you know what’s been assumed? How do you assess the value of it?” he says.
It doesn’t take an internationally renowned economic modeller to tell us that – every primary-school maths teacher instructs their students to show their work. But when the Smart Energy Council contacted Price, seeking the data underpinning his assumptions, the reply was a single word: “No.”
Dutton did it again on Tuesday at a press conference in Adelaide, called to promote the candidacy of Nicolle Flint, a member of his hard-right faction, for the seat of Boothby at the coming election.
“The work of Frontier says that over time electricity prices will be 44 per cent cheaper under our policy than Labor’s,” he said.
On Wednesday, Taylor repeated the claim. The opposition plan, he said, “will bring down electricity bills by 44 per cent. There’s no doubt about that.”
It’s not true. In fact, the Frontier report specifically says, on page 18: “We do not, at this stage, present any results for the prices, as this will depend on how the cost of new capacity will be treated in the future.”
What the Frontier modelling actually concludes is something quite different: that the total cost of upgrading and running the national electricity market out to 2050 – when we are committed to reaching net zero greenhouse emissions – would be 44 per cent less under one scenario including nuclear power than under another not including nuclear.
That claim, too, is misleading, according to many economists and energy experts, because it compares “apples and oranges” – that is, two dissimilar scenarios labelled “step change” and “progressive”.
The first scenario, step change, is premised on Australia electrifying its economy in a big way between now and 2050, largely using renewable energy to power vehicles, homes, existing industries and energy-hungry new ones, such as data centres and AI services, in a robustly growing economy. The other is premised on a future in which that transition away from coal, gas and oil is slower and growth is significantly smaller.
“This is unequivocally about politics, not policy. The Coalition’s $331 billion nuclear fantasy is a coal- and gas-keeper energy transition plan for Australia, funded by taxpayers.”
According to the modelling produced pro bono for the Coalition by Danny Price, managing director of Frontier, the step change scenario without nuclear would cost $594 billion. The progressive scenario with nuclear would cost $331 billion, a difference of $263 billion, or 44 per cent.
But that does not equate to a similar reduction in prices for consumers. Not if the economy ends up being smaller, with less demand for electric power.
Simon Holmes à Court, businessman, energy analyst and director of pro-renewables body The Superpower Institute, summarises the opposition’s case as “we’re going to pay $263 billion less for electricity, but it’s for a lot less electricity”.
“And meantime, we have to pay an extra $500 billion for fossil fuels.”
His calculation factors in the long lead times involved in building nuclear capacity. The Price model would see 13 gigawatts of nuclear commissioned across Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria by 2050. The first unit would not come online until 2036 – and even this is a highly optimistic forecast. According to the CSIRO, a more realistic timeline is 15 years, not 11, to get the first one up and running. Other experts suggest even longer.
The Price model would see only a small amount of nuclear power before 2039 and the whole 23 gigawatts not operational until 2049.
In the meantime, his report says, Australia would have to extend the life of its fleet of coal-fired power plants.
“Already,” says Nicki Hutley, economist, former banker and now a councillor to the Climate Council, “at any one time, about 25 per cent of coal is down because it is ageing and is either under planned or unplanned repairs. What does that do to power prices when you don’t have enough supply to meet demand?”
In his report, Price suggested the problems with coal-fired plants could be ameliorated by introducing much more gas into the grid, but the cost of that, he wrote, “has not been modelled”.
Nor would the extra costs incurred by a delayed transition to renewables only be financial. More fossil fuels would be burnt, so more planet-warming gases would be emitted.
According to Price’s own modelling, the emissions intensity – the amount of greenhouse gas produced per unit of power generated – remains vastly higher under his plan than the government’s, all the way out to 2046.
The fact that emissions under the Price–Dutton nuclear plan eventually come down to the same level as the government’s renewables-heavy plan is beside the point, says Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at UNSW Sydney.
“The pathway there is more important than the destination, in some respects, because it’s the cumulative emissions that matter,” he says.
By his calculations, as well as those of Hutley and the Climate Council, Steven Hamilton of the George Washington University, and the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University, the extra cumulative emissions under the Coalition policy would be enormous.
The Price–Coalition plan would produce about 2.5 times the emissions of the government’s preferred step change model – 1.65 billion tonnes, compared with 0.6 billion, according to Hamilton’s analysis, which was published in The Australian Financial Review this week.
And that is in the electricity sector alone, Hamilton wrote.
Add in the costs outside the generation sector, arising from things such as greater consumption of petrol and diesel resulting from the slower take-up of electric vehicles under the Coalition plan, and the cumulative emissions rise even more. To a total of more than 1.7 billion tonnes, according to Holmes à Court.
Those extra emissions “would blow our carbon budget”, says Hutley. “No wonder the opposition wants to abandon the 43 per cent emissions reduction target,” she says, “because you can’t possibly get anywhere near it under this policy.”
Scrapping that 2030 reduction target set by the current government would breach the Paris climate agreement and make Australia an international “pariah”, she says.
Hutley stresses that she has no objection to nuclear power, per se.
“It’s not ideology. It is purely and simply about the numbers. And I just can’t make them add up. You can’t just say we’re going to produce a grid with a whole lot less energy and that’ll cost us less.”
A large part of the problem in trying to make sense of the Price modelling, Hutley and others say, lies in the assumptions that underpin it. Some, like the capital cost per kilowatt of installed capacity, are generally seen as implausibly low.
Price factors in a cost of $10,000 a kilowatt, although the actual delivered costs of nuclear plants in comparable Western countries are about double that.
Others are simply mystifying, such as his assumed “capacity factors” for nuclear generation compared with wind and solar. Skipping the technical details, the essence of the issue is that nuclear runs more or less continuously, producing a constant amount of relatively expensive electricity. Renewables, by contrast, are intermittent, depending on the sun and wind, but produce cheap electricity.
The widespread concern among energy experts is that the introduction of nuclear into the power system would result in renewables, including rooftop solar, being switched off for extended periods, lest the grid be overwhelmed with power, and to assure the financial viability of nuclear generators.
According to analysis by the peak body for the renewables industry, the Smart Energy Council, “up to five million rooftop solar systems will be switched off, and the average power price bill will more than double” as a result.
An approach to the shadow minister for climate change and energy, Ted O’Brien, seeking the data got no response at all.
Experts interviewed by The Saturday Paper noted other worrying or peculiar aspects of the opposition’s policy, including the party of business’s vision of a nuclear industry wholly funded by government.
They say the reason is that the private sector would not risk investing.
But perhaps the biggest mystery, says Holmes à Court, is why Dutton and co chose to bring on this fight.
Opinion polling shows nuclear is not a popular option with the public, in contrast with wind and particularly solar. More pertinently, it is a policy that almost certainly can’t be implemented any time soon.
The Dutton Coalition would have to win both houses of federal parliament in order to overturn a ban on nuclear legislated under the Howard government in 1998 as part of a deal with the Greens. The odds of that happening are very long.
On top of that, Queensland, Victoria and NSW also have bans on nuclear power and show no inclination to reverse them, even though the Liberal National Party of Queensland now holds government.
“A little-known fact,” says Holmes à Court, “is that Queensland made it a requirement that there be a plebiscite to un-ban nuclear. That’s a lovely little poison pill that they left in the legislation.”
That being the case, why pursue it?
Because it is a means of exploiting voter concerns about the cost of living, even if it relies on the untrue promise of a 44 per cent reduction in electricity prices.
And because it avoids another round of the climate wars that have riven the conservative parties for decades. Those wars played a major part in the demise of several Coalition leaders, including Malcolm Turnbull, twice – the second time as a consequence of the plotting of Peter Dutton.
What the nuclear policy actually does is kick the energy-policy can down the road. It promises to get to net zero by 2050, but in the meantime to keep the electricity system running on fossil fuels for another decade or more.
Indeed, says Stephanie Bashir, of the energy consultancy Nexa Advisory, it is a mistake to consider it a serious policy at all.
“This is unequivocally about politics, not policy,” she says.
“The Coalition’s $331 billion nuclear fantasy is a coal- and gas-keeper energy transition plan for Australia, funded by taxpayers,” she says.
And that about sums it up.
This talk of nuclear is a waste of time: Wind, solar and firming can clearly do the job
RENEW ECONOMY, David Leitch, Dec 30, 2024
Australia’s economic future will be at risk if we stop the wind and solar construction to build nuclear. Big energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as aluminium smelters would likely be forced to close, and the risk of blackouts from forcing coal generators to stay on line would be huge.
Wind, solar and firming can clearly do the job. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason.
• Makes blackouts more likely by forcing coal stations, already expensive to maintain, that require government support and are increasingly unreliable to go for much longer. The idea of replacing the coal plants with gas while we wait is likely not very realistic, largely because gas plants themselves are expensive and hard to permit and because if asked to run in shoulder mode they are not very efficient and require lots of gas. And right now we are already looking at importing LNG.
If the nuclear plants are 5, 10 or 15 years late, as is entirely possible, it would require heroic assumptions to see the coal fleet managing the gap.
More to the point it’s a completely avoidable and unnecessary risk. Australia is well set on its transition path.
There are some inevitable cost up and downs but no show stoppers have been identified. Every hurdle from reliability to inertia has been overcome. There is no need and no reason to change course. Certainly economics is not a reason.
• Increases emission costs by between A$57 and A$72 bn (NPV @ 7%) even in the very unlikely event the plants are built on time as compared to the present ISP.
• The nuclear plants stand a good chance of being well over budget and late. That’s because:
° Globally that is often but not always the case. By and large the nuclear industry is one of the most likely global industries to be late and over budget.
There is no real nuclear expertise in Australia;
° It will have to be more or less forced on an industry set on a different course;
° It will likely be government owned and developed and the record on that in Australia is poor;
° In general for most capital intensive industries there is an Australia cost premium relative to global averages. This in the end will disadvantage us compared to other countries in terms of the cost of energy.
• Likely will destroy the value of CER (consumer energy resources – rooftop solar, home batteries and EVs) in Australia.
• Will result in the temporary halt in the transition to a firmed VRE system which is already 20 years down the track with a penetration rate of say 50% within 18 months.
• Equally the LNP and by comparison Frontier don’t appear to have done the work or to understand the demand forecasts. The LNP bleat on about EVs, but the real differences are hydrogen, large industrial loads and business demand. One suspects that the aluminium industry in Australia will die if it has to wait for nuclear.
• Finally the old concept of baseload is changing, but in my opinion firming costs are cheaper the bigger the portfolio. This implies firming should sit at least with a large gentailer or possibly with a State or even Federal Govt.
The existing wind and solar build out is working, and it’s far too risky to rely on old coal plants
The biggest, by far, reason for the electricity industry to push back against the ideological LNP Nuclear plan is its far, far too risky.
Australia has a plan to decarbonise. It’s not a perfect plan, no plan survives first contact, but it’s capable of and is in fact being achieved. We are roughly already at 40% VRE. We have at least 20 years experience at developing and integrating wind, solar, behind the meter assets and batteries.
We know the issues around transmission and social license and cost and reliability. There are well developed plans for each issue and a wealth of industry finance and expertise.
The assets to take us from 40% VRE to 50% are already under construction, some are just starting to enter service.
The insurance finance to add another 12 GW of VRE and 4 GW of firming assets (essentially batteries) is already either awarded or in tender through the CIS.
The LNP wants to bring this to a crashing halt, keep our few, increasingly ageing and unreliable coal stations going for another 20 years while it starts up an industry in which Australia has zero comparative advantage and zero experience.
Only in politics could conmen say things with such a straight face. The risk of the coal stations failing is very high. Other stations like Eraring have full ash dams. Yallourn is already on Government support, Vales Point and particularly Mt Piper have coal supply issues………………………………………………………………………..
The errors and sleights of hand in Frontier’s nuclear v ISP analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Govt funded and managed likely increases risks very significantly
As far as I know the electricity industry in Australia has expressed zero interest in nuclear and obviously some parts of the industry that are busy building wind and solar will be actively opposed. Clearly this in itself is likely to raise costs. That is, the nuclear plants will have to be forced on the industry to a greater or lesser extent.
Again although the plans are very vague the understanding is that they will Goverment funded and owned. Leaving aside all questions of ideology, in my opinion having the Goverment manage the program rather than industry means that there will be less expertise at almost every stage.
I could rant on about this, the mind truly does boggle a bit at the possible negative outcomes, but perhaps it is sufficient to say that having the Goverment step into this area where it has no expertise raises the odds of cost and delay outcome substantially…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. more https://reneweconomy.com.au/this-talk-of-nuclear-is-a-waste-of-time-wind-solar-and-firming-can-clearly-do-the-job/
Scientists should break the ice
once the ice sheet slides into the ocean, there is no putting it back, even if all carbon emissions ended that day. The ice-sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by 58 metres. Even if only half of it breaks off, it will be just a waiting game over just a few years for the ice to melt and for us to watch every coastal city on earth to be inundated. In our lifetime.
once the ice sheet slides into the ocean, there is no putting it back, even if all carbon emissions ended that day. The ice-sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by 58 metres. Even if only half of it breaks off, it will be just a waiting game over just a few years for the ice to melt and for us to watch every coastal city on earth to be inundated. In our lifetime.
Crispin Hull, December 29, 2024
The 2024 award for the biggest disjoin between the importance of a story and the coverage it got must surely go to the science briefing on Antarctica and Sea-Level Rise published by the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership and the ARC Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.
It came out in September. The ABC had some coverage, but it seemed to miss some essential points.
Here is what the new science tells us and how it is different from the older science.
The older science tells us that the amount of sea ice in Antarctica is shrinking, but not as badly as in the Arctic. Sea ice expands and contracts quite quickly according to air and sea temperature. So, a gradual reduction in sea ice will mean a gradual and comparatively small rise in sea levels.
This science should be moderately alarming, but the misinformationists in the fossil fuel industry can bat away public fears by saying not much is happening here and it will not happen in your lifetime, so carry on as usual.
This is standard stuff from fossil misinformationists: climate change is not happening, but if it is happening it is part of natural geologic forces and has nothing to do with human-generated carbon, and even if it is caused by human-generated carbon we can develop technologies to capture the carbon and safely store it away.
In short, they base their facts on their desired conclusion that they can continue to make profits from the emission of carbon until ecosystems and economies collapse. When it is too late.
Coming back to Antarctica, earlier science suggested that sea-ice contraction could be reversed if temperatures came down a bit. As it happens sea-ice is an important reflector of solar rays (and heat). Without the sea-ice you have dark ocean which absorbs the rays and increases the heat of the ocean. Nonetheless, it is still a probably reversible process.
Enter the new research. This is about the eastern Antarctic icesheet. Hitherto, this has given climate scientists much less cause for concern. This is because the eastern ice sheet has built up over land. It is anchored.
Unlike sea-ice it is not vulnerable to warmer water melting it.
Picture the land mass and a big thick ice sheet over it. The sea nibbles at the edge and even if the sea is a bit warmer it does not melt much ice. This is not like sea-ice where the warmer water is all around it melting it quickly. So, hitherto scientists have taken some climate solace in the fact that so much ice is safely tied up in the eastern Antarctic ice-sheet (more than 60 per cent of the world’s fresh water) and so will give us more time to slow and reverse the warming of the planet.
Enter the new research. Remove the image of a lump of land mass. Rather picture that the land mass has been forced down by the weight of the ice – heavier at the middle of the land mass and lighter at the edge.
The new science tells us that much of the eastern Antarctic ice-sheet is grounded below sea level. So, one the warmer sea waters get under it, the whole sheet becomes unstable and can slide into the ocean. And even if temperatures are made to fall, the tipping point would have been reached – the warmer sea would have run under the massive ice-sheet, undermining it and making its slide into the ocean inevitable.
And once the ice sheet slides into the ocean, there is no putting it back, even if all carbon emissions ended that day. The ice-sheet holds enough water to raise sea levels by 58 metres. Even if only half of it breaks off, it will be just a waiting game over just a few years for the ice to melt and for us to watch every coastal city on earth to be inundated. In our lifetime.
Once the ice sheet hits the ocean, it is the end of civilisation as we know it.
The ice cannot be put back.
The greater the potential damage the more you should do about it, even if you think the risk is small. This is why people go to a lot of effort to make their houses less exposed to bushfires and cyclones.
It may be that some billionaires might imagine they could set up doomsday retreats to avoid death, injury, and discomfort. They are dreaming. In those circumstances money means nothing and the profit-driven selfishness that drives unnecessarily extending the use of fossil fuel will be brushed aside by the maniac selfishness of those on a desperate if doomed survival mission.
Scientists must change stop their subdued, cautious approach to reporting climate change. It is understandable because scientists do not want to cause panic or unnecessary alarm. But the approach has just given the fossil industry endless free kicks. It is time for alarm and measured panic.
Scientists should stop being scared of publishing scary material in a scary way. It is time to tell people the reality of the biggest security, economic, and existential threat to humans on earth………………………. more http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2024/12/29/scientists-should-break-the-ice/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 